It was not faked, so there will be never a good website to prove opposite.
How do I know for sure? Let's start simple: The amount of evidence for it and the lack of evidence against it. There is simply no evidence that Apollo 11 was faked and Apollo 1-10 or Apollo 12-17 not. We are talking about six successful landings on the moon, not just one.
For more accurate analysis, I study spaceflight technology. I know the math behind how rockets work and I can read the technical reports of NASA and validate their truth. I can look at their data (for example Apollo by the numbers) and calculate if such trajectories are possible with the claimed technology.
Just look at the vast number of technical reports. We are talking about Gigabytes of Data.
How can we know for sure? If the historic report of six manned landings on the moon fits all available evidence, inside and outside NASA, this theory has to be considered historic truth.
Among the fist countries to congratulate NASA for their successful first landing had been their cold war rivals, the USSR. Depending on which hoax proponent you ask, the USSR either had been so technologically advanced, that the USA had to fake the landing for beating it to the moon and technologically so inferior compared to the USA and Generation Youtube today, that they believed NASA. Both at the same time.
Also, the German Observatory of Bochum owns magnetic tapes with the transmissions of the Apollo 11 landing, recorded in 1969.
So, you have moon rocks, which had been gathered by human astronauts (Even today, a rover would not be able to gather so much material in such a short time, and also look for geological important material). You have magnetic tapes of the radio transmissions from the moon, together with information about antenna pointing and velocity changes of the target. You have flown spacecraft in museums all over the USA.
NASA can back their claims up with evidence - the hoax proponents have nothing. They just take NASA photos and then shout "Look at this, this must have been filmed in a studio, this can't have been filmed on the moon." Without any further explanation, what makes them experts on what to expect in space. And often these people can't say, which physical phenomena is responsible for what you see.
Take for example the famous claim "Only multiple light sources can explain that the shadows you see on the moon go into different directions". This claim is especially funny, because you can observe both directions of the claim on Earth. You can see how trees in a park throw shadows, which go into different directions, though the only light source is the sun (The hoax people forget, that shadows are only the projection of the shadow volume on the scene, for example on the terrain). And you can watch sport events, where multiple light sources are used and which produce shadows going into different directions - but then, you have multiple shadows per object.
Does this make sense? Can you really expect to have different laws of physics on the moon than on Earth? Sure not.
The hoax proponents lack knowledge even about the most basic laws of physics - and they want you, to become even more stupid, so you buy their books and DVDs. Without asking questions or complaining about the bad science.
Additionally@ParallelTwilight:
You have a very strange definition of evidence.
For example: You expect a crater below the LM. Can you tell us more about why you have such a expectation? What makes you sure, that the LM would produce a visible crater? Do you have scientific evidence to back this hypothesis up? Did you experimentally simulate the landing of a LM on lunar dust? Did you use computer models? Or at least calculated the pressure of the exhaust on the lunar dust?
Let us ask the Soviets. Hey comrades, did your lunar probes blow a crater below them during landing?
http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_Luna17_Horz03.jpg
http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_Luna17_Horz09.jpg
Strange. No crater.
Maybe you are wrong and real scientists are right? Maybe your expectations not been tested against reality? What about your other expectations?
Science does not give a damn, what you believe. Science is about what you really know. Remember this in your coursework.
PS: Bill Kaysing had never a clue about physics and he showed this lack of knowledge every time he can. He is the only person in the USA, who came from university with an Bachelor of Arts (Of English studies), and got hired as senior technical writer from day one - according to his own account.
His number of 0.0017% is nothing else but his own opinion, he was never able to show calculations or point to such technical reports. Especially since he must have seen such reports before the development of the spacecraft even started - he quit Rocketdyne already in 1963, 6 years before Apollo 11.